Monday, October 6, 2014
Secret Service Reform?
Photo: Julia Pierson
A proposal came to the table this week seeking to remove Secret Service from the realm of Homeland Security(DHS). This action was proposed after a terrible week for the Secret Service, which included Secret Service Director Julia Pierson resigning amid multiple reports of breaches in White House security. So, what are my thoughts on this proposition?
Well, the Secret Service has 6,500 employees to it- all of which have suffered since it was synced up with the DHS back in 2001. Right now, under the DHS umbrella, these 6,500 employees work as a team to combat counterfeiting and to protect current and former presidents, vice presidents and visiting heads of state. My issue isn't so much with the mission statement or the team work, but the being spread too thin part. For example, why isn't the treasury department handling counterfeiting? Well, because their staff isn't trained to spot certain terrorist patterns, where the DHS is and the secret service can be helpful within this type of associated task. Basically, without one- the other can't work as efficiently.
I do think the secret service should only be focused on protecting the president, but still should remain under the umbrella of the DHS because threats to the terrorist could involve terrorists. They should work hand-in-hand on these types of concerns, but independent ff one another when applicable. To put it in everyday terms, think about a clerk at an office. His or her job is to enter data into a computer system.The data is payroll. So, she enters it in and that is all she is responsible for, right? But what if she spots an error? Should she still enter it in? Or, should she call the supervising manager who turned in the data and point out the error? The two have to work together to solve the problem. If the clerk were to only stick to her job and enter in the error, the billing would be off and someone would be over or under paid. The supervising manager obviously made a mistake. For the benefit of the company- and basically all involved- working together , but in different capacities, was beneficial in the example.
I don't understand why we have to make things so complicated when it comes to common sense security issues. I also don't understand how forcing someone to resign rectifies any errors. Now, a new person can come in and the learning curve to start the security process can be that much more behind... right? Working together without overstepping one another only makes sense.
Twyla N. Garrett